Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansigh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Mansigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article declined at AFC and creator of the page has continued to move war and edit war. In any case the subject of the fails to satisfy WP:BIO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search doesn’t turn up anything substantial. AFD'ing this page is just the last resort Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources do not currently indicate notability- if there are more / better sources out there- please add them. I do think she could be mentioned in another article for her contributions. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I couldn't find much in the way of RS, and I researched this thoroughly, thinking I might be able to rescue it. The Independent states she is "a woman pioneer in the field of computer programming, breaking through gender barriers and supporting the physics research done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) over a forty year career" here; and NanoTRANS called her a "pioneer of Molecular Dynamics Simulations" here. The Independent might work, but even calls itself "local coverage", and I've never heard of NanoTRANS before so have no idea on its sourcing. The entry in NanoTRANS doesn't even have a byline. There's also an article that appears on a number of sites called "Almost famous a woman behind the codes" (available here) that calls her "a truly outstanding representative of the first generation of coders", but there's no byline and I don't know where it originated. The specific wording shows up on a number of sites, so they're just copying each other. Do three short sources (two without bylines or attribution) GNG make? I'm leaning toward delete. Feel free to ping me if someone's able to find something better or make a swaying Keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nominator claims to have done a WP:BEFORE search, but in addition to the above sources, the first page of Google Books turns up coverage in a Springer publication: (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Computer_Meets_Theoretical_Physics/VCbsDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22mary+ann+mansigh%22&pg=PA45&printsec=frontcover). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I do not see how the sources (including the one mentioned by Gnomingstuff) constitutes significant coverage. Kbabej's analysis is spot on. It is unfortunate that the article was not allowed to remain a draft, but now it has to meet the applicable notability criteria, and neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF is met. She seems to have been a thoroughly competent programmer, but that is not grounds for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Following on from my posts above in the spirit of compromise (as this's when I can afford it), I've decided - barring any objections - to de-clog/de-clutter/un-clog/un-clutter(??? yeh, yeh, whatever) the discussion, and move some of my messages to this chat site's talk page. over n out... Ema--or (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of science deletion discussions. Ema--or (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if EPFL considers her a pioneer, and has conferences held in her honor, she's notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Keep per WP:HEY due to the research and work by Britishfinance. - The article has some potential, and there is indication that she might be notable, but it was moved irregularly into live article space much too soon. The disruptive editing during the creation process, and in this AfD is problematic. I suggest sending it back to draft space to incubate, and allow other editors who are interested in women in science to help develop it. Netherzone (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The very-non-neutrally-worded project notification by Ema--or at Special:Diff/1006287654 looks like a serious WP:CANVASS violation to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agreed. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, multiple WikiProjects were canvassed. Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AFD was already put in those Wikiprojects' deletion sorting lists so it probably didn't make any difference. Dream Focus 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, well, well, what would you know. In that case then ... Be advised, be advised - I intend to add Wps History of science and Computing as well. Ema--or (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ed Still awaiting further clarification, so haven't sent the alerts. Please hold hold off declaring consensus until after they have been notified. I'll inform the discussion when the posts've been made. Ema--or (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Done. Ema--or (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I'm inclined to believe that the person is notable, but given the problematic nature of the editing, etc. I agree with Netherzone that it probably needs a bit of time to incubate. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to recent improvements to the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Headbomb. She might be "almost famous", but fame≠notability. If she was one of the two to three people known for inventing the whole field of molecular dynamics, that's a pretty big deal. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She was significant in her field. https://www.independentnews.com/community/aauw-presents-tales-of-a-computer-pioneer/article_febbadb4-a6c2-11e6-b9f6-f7ce486823ea.html She was thanked at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6248020 "I am particularly grateful to Mary Ann Mansigh for programming the many and varied molecular-dynamics problems for the computer." Her peers respect her contributions to a new field of science. Dream Focus 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the comment above about the book found by Gnomingstuff. It contains over a page of coverage which is perfectly enough for an encyclopedia article. My worry is that I can't find any other equivalent source. And, of course, the canvassing that has happened can only serve to make it more difficult to evaluate this subject properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Netherzone above, but also because this article is a draft that was declined at AFC. The normal procedure for a declined draft is to remain a draft and eventually be re-submitted to AFC once it's deemed ready. The fact that the draft's creator decided to ignore the AFC procedure and move it to articlespace prematurely doesn't change any of that, so it should go back to draftspace where it belongs. Lennart97 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It took me 10 minutes to find that previously-declined form due to so much page-move/hist-merge and multiple creations. I assume it's User:Ema--or/Mary_Ann_Mansigh? That's not a valid article. The nominated page instead makes multiple specific claims of notability, some with cites, and here in AFDAFC more have been identified. If it makes someone feel better to move this to AFD, re-add the tags, then accept it (if that's what this AFD concludes), then that's fine I guess. But neither Netherzone nor Lennart97 seem to have identified any specific reason to reject it in its current form beyond process-circumvention. I agree that the creator should be admonished for so much disruption of process, but fact is here we are, and AFD itself seems to have led to improvement of the article. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed TLA. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed from Draftify, above). Dmacks is correct: this current, vastly improved version is ready for article space, and how it got there doesn't matter. I let my annoyance with the creator's disruptive behaviour cloud my judgement on this one. Thanks for pointing this out, DMacks. Lennart97 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article has been sufficiently improved).--DreamLinker (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Draftify for now and let this article be improved, without the AfD deadline. Personally, I believe this is a notable person (although I don't really have enough sources to back it up right now). Considering that computer programming was a niche field in the 1950s/60s, it is highly probably that a programmer from that era is notable. As Mary Ann Mansigh was a programmer instead of an academic researcher, the lack of papers authored is understandable. In the "acknowledgment" section of some papers dating back to the 60s and 70s, I did find her name mentioned. There are also brief mentions in a few recent papers [1],[2],[3]. My library subscription has expired so I am not able to search older news/databases. It is unfortunate though, that the article was moved to mainspace sidestepping AFC and I would recommend the author to trust the process and collaborate. Many of us are willing to help and improve articles, but as we are volunteers, we might not be able to immediately improve it. AFC allows us to collaborate without a strict deadline.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is clear that she is a borderline case so I don't think drafting this will change this. The crux is that Mary has become notable due to the fact that she was one of the very few female computer scientists working at that time (several of the academic papers quoted in the article name check her in this regard, such as ".. more “he” than “she” in the 50’s and 60’s — Arianna Rosenbluth and Mary-Ann Mansigh are notable exceptions.." (we have a Arianna W. Rosenbluth article). This status is sufficient for several notable academic institutions (quoted in the article and ELs), to name lecture series after her. I think this meets WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. Preserving such fragments of a female pioneer are useful encyclopedic activities. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This interview for the EPFL is WP:SIGCOV (and contains useful biographical details), Mary Ann Mansigh Karlsen, codeuse de la première heure. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, very poignant ref [12] (last ref) in this tidied up an article of an academic noting that her name should have appeared as an author on the published academic papers written as a result of her molecular dynamics computer code - again, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER, these were different times for women. Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following WP:HEY by Britishfinance. The Springer volume is definitely significant coverage, and I think the other sources there are now enough to support. I also agree that there's a possible WP:NPROF C1 case, per her (under-acknowledged) contribution to impactful scientific work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above and the sources now cited in the article. Particularly convincing is that the modern equivalent would undoubtably be credited as a co-author of many papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I must say a word about draftification. There is nothing "irregular" about an article creator moving an article to mainspace. Creating an article in mainspace is the regular Wikipedia process, and going through AfC is completely optional for anyone with the technical capability of bypassing AfC. If anyone chooses not to use AfC then an article should stand or fall by an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who used the word "irregular". That comment was based on my reading of the article history. Netherzone (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: my mention of the Springer book -- My mentioning it is more of a quality-of-coverage argument, as opposed to quantity; for instance, the beginning of the section calls her "perhaps the greatest collaborator of Alder and Wainwright," which seems like a clear statement of significance by the author. But quantity does enter into it as well; several pages dedicated to one person, including biographical details, in a book more broadly about the history of molecular physics is a non-trivial amount of space. (I didn't come here from any kind of canvassing operation.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Headbomb (and Gnomingstuff above, and other comments..). Getting a lecture series in your honor seems enough to be considered notable. It might be bad form for me to say this, but it seems WP has plenty of bios of less notable programmers, "famous" for writing blogs and posting youtube videos, rather than actually achieving anything. Let's honor historic importance; the importance of developing an entire field seems indisputable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.